These cameras for your phone camera will cost you $250-$500.

Share this story

Sony has come clean about its heavily leaked camera-lens-for-your-smartphone offerings, the Cybershot DSC-QX10 and DSC-QX100. They are basically complete cameras in the body of a lens, packing everything a camera would need except for the screen.

For the viewfinder, the cameras wirelessly tether to your Android or iOS devices. Android phones with NFC can set up the Wi-Fi tethering with a simple tap. iOS uses are still included, but they'll have to manually set up their iThings from a settings menu. The lenses can optionally mount to your smartphone and work as a makeshift camera or, more interestingly, work separately. Sony suggested taking a low-angle shot with one hand while holding your phone with the other or one person holding the lens with another person looking at the viewfinder.

The DSC-QX10 will run you $249.99, and it features a 10x optical zoom, an 18.2 megapixel version of Sony's Exmor R CMOS sensor, optical image stabilization, 1080p video recording, and two color choices (black and white). The specs are similar to Sony's Cyber-shot WX150 point and shoot, which can be had for about $200—not exactly a value proposition.

In the other corner we have the DSC-QX100, a whopping $499.99 smartphone lens. Five Benjamins will buy you a 3.6x optical zoom, a 20.2MP Exmor R sensor, optical image stabilization, a 28 mm Carl Zeiss lens, manual focus, and one color (only black). The specs for this one match the Cyber-shot DSC-RX100, which is actually $100 more expensive.

Sony also has a few accessories up its sleeve, most notably a universal cell phone mount. The company says this will fit even the biggest phones. There's also a case for the camera lens available.

Ultimately the question remains: are you a serious enough photographer that you want to spend 250-500 dollars upgrading the camera in your smartphone yet not serious enough to go out and buy a dedicated camera? We're having a really hard time picturing a market for all of these Android/camera hybrids that are coming out. Does anyone out there actually want one of these for this price?

Share this story

Ron Amadeo
Ron is the Reviews Editor at Ars Technica, where he specializes in Android OS and Google products. He is always on the hunt for a new gadget and loves to rip things apart to see how they work. Emailron@arstechnica.com//Twitter@RonAmadeo

76 Reader Comments

I've got a D7000 with an 18-200 lens, but it's a rare occasion that I want to be lugging that thing around, especially now that I've got a perfectly passable camera in my Nexus 4. A product like this would (theoretically) provide an ideal middle ground between the two.

Plus, it's pretty obviously designed to fit in a purse; I'd imagine "people with purses" is a fairly large demographic.

Price point is a bit high for my tastes, as tends to be the norm with Sony. Still, it's a beautiful and innovative piece of kit.

As for uses, sure, I can see a few. Sometimes when I'm out and about but packing light (say hiking or on my motorcycle) I'd like to take some better-than-smartphone photos and since I have a little bit of extra carry space the clip-on lens would not be an issue. At the same time, in those cases, I probably wouldn't want to lug around my Nikon DSLR.

I think it's great that Sony is coming up with something different from the rest of the pack. It'll be a niche product but I think it's an interesting idea. If I didn't already have an RX100 II I might consider it (who am I kidding, I like having a physical camera too much).

I do find myself using the NFC/Wifi file transfer from my camera to my phone quite often, sometimes you want to share a image right away, and the quality is miles better than the build in camera on my phone.

These seem awkward to use. You generally need to get out two devices to use them, you need to unlock your phone, mount it, and probably also turn on the "lens". If I'm going to carry two devices, I would rather have a camera. There's no savings of convenience here, and the savings of weight and volume are minimal.

Have to agree... I can see this used both for more casual consumer needs as some previous posters describe, but also even for "prosumer" use - instead of lugging the DSLR out, carry lens + iPad. Does it have a tripod mount?

I probably don't have the funds, but I could see this supplementing my DSLR. I use my iPhone camera quite a bit already due to convenience... having a nice optical zoom and quality optics would be pretty sweet.

$250 is about what I spent on my last point and shoot, and I'm increasingly unhappy with the pictures my phone takes about 80% of the time, so if this thing reviews well (hint, hint Ars...) then I might consider it for when my point and shoot eventually dies. It appears slightly smaller and slightly less cumbersome to carry around compared to a point and shoot, plus the ability to put it on a bench/stump/etc for a "group selfie" would be cool..... But all that said I think the stars are going to have to line up pretty carefully for this to either take off big and/or for me to own one personally.

If the specs is really as good as on paper, I can imagine a sizeable niche market for this. I have a compact SLR and even that is a bit bulky to take around at times. Sometimes I just need something slightly better than phone camera, if the lens addons are light enough to lunge around that'd be great.

These seem awkward to use. You generally need to get out two devices to use them, you need to unlock your phone, mount it, and probably also turn on the "lens". If I'm going to carry two devices, I would rather have a camera. There's no savings of convenience here, and the savings of weight and volume are minimal.

Keep in mind that while the point-n-shoot is probably slightly more convenient to ready, part of the appeal of this solution is that the photos are saved to the phone, where they can be immediately manipulated, shared, or backed up online.

I have a 5D II, but I'm definitely interested in this for the times that I don't feel like carrying my big camera around with me.

A camera is basically a light collector with a display and processor. Most people are already carrying around the display and processor part. I'm glad someone is now making a good light collector that will work with it.

Quote: "The specs for this one match the Cyber-shot DSC-RX100, which is actually $100 more expensive!"

If I'm not mistaken, it's a match for the RX100 II (or M2, or Mark II, depends on who you ask), the updated version that just came out. It's another $100 on top of the RX100's price, so in total it's $200 more than this lens.

While I like the modular idea, I don't see a huge benefit in convenience. I got the RX100 II as soon as it came out, and it's small enough by itself to carry it around alongside my phone. And, it's one hell of a camera. The perfect package.

I'm not sure I see these catching on. Most people who take camera phone pictures are content with FaceBook quality. For a step up, small digital point-n-shoot cameras can be had for cheaper and are about the same size and don't require a 2nd item to use them. And for $500 I can buy a very nice lens for my DSLR.

So the target demographic seems to be people who want a point and shoot that uploads photos to their favorite web site via their phone. That's a lot of $ for that, but it's better than releasing a point and shoot that only works with one or two sponsored sites.

But I give Sony full points for nifty-ness. The "lens" really seems to be a point and shoot with wifi controls, and being able to separate the two (up-skirt photos notwithstanding) could potentially be an interesting way to get shots.

I love the idea of this and glad it's finally been announced, I have an RX100 which has incredible image quality for the size and the new RX100 II looks even better but I couldn't really justify forking out again so soon after. However having a smaller package than the RX100 is definitely appealing particularly to take out cycles and similar. It's tempting to get a preorder in now but will probably wait for reviews as it's going to be critical that the camera and phone work well together, if communication is flaky (like the Sony liveview watches seem to have been whenever I've read reviews) then it's going to make the device frustrating to use.

While Samsung cramming the S3 into a compact superzoom is quite impressive technically it's always seemed a bit pointless to me as you can't really use the camera as you would a phone or tablet (file uploads and similar yes, but playing games and many other functions no) and given how prominent smartphones are these days it duplicates a lot of the functionality. Sony's approach to go the other way and remove as much of the functionality over lap with these lenses seems on paper to be a good idea...I just hope it works in practice.

I wish they would stop listing the number of pixels without mentioning the sensor size. You can cram as many pixels together as you want but the smaller they are on the sensor the less information they collect. Worse yet most if not all these days (not counting the large sensors you get on good DSLRs) have pixels that are smaller than the wavelength of light. Past that point your resolving power is limited.

These seem awkward to use. You generally need to get out two devices to use them, you need to unlock your phone, mount it, and probably also turn on the "lens". If I'm going to carry two devices, I would rather have a camera. There's no savings of convenience here, and the savings of weight and volume are minimal.

Keep in mind that while the point-n-shoot is probably slightly more convenient to ready, part of the appeal of this solution is that the photos are saved to the phone, where they can be immediately manipulated, shared, or backed up online.

Can't you do that with other products? EyeFi, etc. You don't need to add the other steps.

I could see some interesting stereoscopic use cases for reasonably high quality, compact cameras. Not the niche I suspect Sony is looking for.

Fundamentally these lenses just replace your point-and-shoot. There's no phone camera lens with a large enough aperture to replicate the types of photos that a decent chunk of glass can provide. I guess these lenses are small enough to make it preferable to carry this vs. a separate point and shoot.

Anyone who shoots a DSLR regularly will not find these lenses a replacement. The responsiveness of even the best point and shoots is too slow - nevermind one that's slaved to a smartphone.

I really wonder how convenient the WiFi connectivity is and how functional the App will be. I own a Sony NEX6, with WiFi, but I rarely use the feature. For once, the connectivity is a pain to use and the iPhone App is terrible (can't speak for Android).Then I often have problems with those WiFi connecting devices, most phones get confused when connecting to those things and won't use their 3G network in the meantime. Usually that means you can't quickly upload a picture, you have to disconnect first.

Still form a technical point of view: great idea, great lenses. Well worth the price.

So, a giant, cylindrical digital camera that you can't fit in your pocket, won't easily balance on a flat surface for selfies (in absence of a tripod), is too large for GoPro-like action sports filming and costs $250; Sony's DSC QX series lenses sound like solutions in search of a problem.

However having a smaller package than the RX100 is definitely appealing particularly to take out cycles and similar.

I keep seeing this, and every time I have to assume that the person saying this has never actually looked at the size of these things. The QX100 is the same height as the RX100, and it is narrower by ~35mm, but it is thicker (probably not including the mounting clip) by ~20mm, so it's almost a cubical cylinder. The QX100 may be slightly less in volume than the RX100, but it is also significantly less pocketable.

I'm very close to to this niche. I've been looking for a nice simple integrated solution for the simple fact that my phone, while it can take good pictures, has no optical zoom. The new lumia looks fantastic, but I need a phone like iOS or Android that I can actually get things done on other than taking pictures. My only issue with attachments is that it's something else to carry with you. So far the only options were telescopic lenses with cheesy looking attachment cases that don't always fit well, and Olloclip, which only has a 2x telescope (might be better than nothing but I need to be able to zoom in on the kids on the sports field).

The best camera is the camera you have with you. Considering all these attempts to solve the "I want a perfect camera in my phone" problem, I'm excited that in the next couple of years people are hopefully going to have access to phone cameras with optical zoom.

However having a smaller package than the RX100 is definitely appealing particularly to take out cycles and similar.

I keep seeing this, and every time I have to assume that the person saying this has never actually looked at the size of these things. The QX100 is the same height as the RX100, and it is narrower by ~35mm, but it is thicker (probably not including the mounting clip) by ~20mm, so it's almost a cubical cylinder. The QX100 may be slightly less in volume than the RX100, but it is also significantly less pocketable.

I have looked at it (rather a lot actually) and it is smaller than the RX100 and it should fit better onto the pockets or bags I use for cycling which tend to be short and fat rather than thin and long.

If it has the same size and optics as the RX100 MK II, why does it have to be so big? That camera is much thinner than this lens. The fact that it is bigger than the RX100 when that camera's lens is fully extended implies it's not the same optics, just maybe similar.

If it has the same size and optics as the RX100 MK II, why does it have to be so big? That camera is much thinner than this lens. The fact that it is bigger than the RX100 when that camera's lens is fully extended implies it's not the same optics, just maybe similar.

Don't forget they have to cram a battery in there. The RX100 has the space for it in the body.

I could see some interesting stereoscopic use cases for reasonably high quality, compact cameras. Not the niche I suspect Sony is looking for.

Fundamentally these lenses just replace your point-and-shoot. There's no phone camera lens with a large enough aperture to replicate the types of photos that a decent chunk of glass can provide. I guess these lenses are small enough to make it preferable to carry this vs. a separate point and shoot.

Anyone who shoots a DSLR regularly will not find these lenses a replacement. The responsiveness of even the best point and shoots is too slow - nevermind one that's slaved to a smartphone.

I use a DSLR regularly (a D700) and the responsiveness of the RX100 is actually very good but more importantly there is no way a D700 will fit in a pocket so it doesn't really matter how it performs if I can't take it with me. I do find the lack of flexibility within the raw files of the RX100 frustrating particularly the lack of dynamic range but for the size of the package of the results are still surprisingly good for when I simply can't take the DSLR with me. Even putting the size/weight of the D700's setup aside, I wouldn't take it biking where there's a good chance it's going to get damaged - at least with the RX100 or one of the devices here if it gets broken it's a few hundred pounds rather than the few thousand the D700 and its lenses cost.

Quote: "The specs for this one match the Cyber-shot DSC-RX100, which is actually $100 more expensive!"

If I'm not mistaken, it's a match for the RX100 II (or M2, or Mark II, depends on who you ask), the updated version that just came out. It's another $100 on top of the RX100's price, so in total it's $200 more than this lens.

You are correct as it's an error in the article, it can be confusing as the two cameras have the same size sensor, same resolution and same lens but as you say the QX100 uses the new backlit sensor which is also fitted in the more expensive RX100 II rather than the older non-backlit sensor which is used in the RX100.

My Canon g9 was just under $500 in 2008, and with CHDK it's damn near the only camera i need for anything. Same length as my smartphone and about 3x as thick, still fits in most of my pockets. though this would be fun for getting some interesting angles. Only thing a DSLR will give me over this is better low light and further zoom.. and faster focus..and easy manual focus...and instant snapshot... and more FPS... and HD recording capability...dammit *checks savings* ....dammit

though the one thing i still got is the underwater case... that's fun.

These are neat but the price needs to be less, and the lens/phone combo needs to offer something innovative that the P&S cameras do not.

As it stands now, I can get a sweet compact P&S for $250. It'd be just a tad bigger than these lenses. But so what? If it doesn't fit flush in my pocked (like a phone), and requires a purse or a jacket pocket or similar, then it might as well be a little bigger.

If it has the same size and optics as the RX100 MK II, why does it have to be so big? That camera is much thinner than this lens. The fact that it is bigger than the RX100 when that camera's lens is fully extended implies it's not the same optics, just maybe similar.

Don't forget they have to cram a battery in there. The RX100 has the space for it in the body.

I don't have it here with me now, but the battery in the RX100 is pretty small, maybe 0.2" thick at most. That wouldn't explain the depth of the lens.

If it has the same size and optics as the RX100 MK II, why does it have to be so big? That camera is much thinner than this lens. The fact that it is bigger than the RX100 when that camera's lens is fully extended implies it's not the same optics, just maybe similar.

Don't forget they have to cram a battery in there. The RX100 has the space for it in the body.

I don't have it here with me now, but the battery in the RX100 is pretty small, maybe 0.2" thick at most. That wouldn't explain the depth of the lens.

Battery, CPU, SD card, antenna.... on a regular camera it can be spread across a much wider and taller body. For this everything is cramp under the lens.